"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
Full Story

<quoted text>Actually, I'm pretty sure a Commander-in-Chief who lies about the deaths of those who serve under him to win an election is a sure fire way to lose "proper respect".Umbrella of security? Tell that to the conservatives whose lives were ruined by the IRS due to the climate set by this president.He has never been my president because he made it quite clear from the beginning he didn't want to be.

Obama didn't lie about anything you clueless twit! Why don't you come up with a single quote with citation that proves he lied about anything?What conservatives have had their lives ruined by the IRS?You're living in some kind of bizarre alternate universe.

<quoted text>Son, I already know you won't stop talking about whatever you want to talk about.All I'm pointing out is how you change the topics when you don't want to answer if things aren't working your way.And I have no problems with that (* snicker *)

Whatever is really Eman and he's having an identity crisis and can't think straight lately. Actually he's never been able to think straight.

<quoted text>"real dumb"Personally I do not care if a marine holds an umbrella for president nobama, he needs all the help he can get. There is little nobama can do without help, no reason to expect him to be able to use an umbrella. Thing is the marine should not have. The marines are not nobama's personal servants. Pictures have been shown of Army personnel holding an umbrella for a president, but not a marine. Several posters have posted that male marines are not permitted ho hold an umbrella when on duty.You should check it out I did not post about military personnel but marines in particular.Why are you such a phoney, always changing the subject. grow up. Get a job.PeaceKMA

See. Moocher Eed claims he doesn't care but then goes into a diatribe of baloney bitching about it.

<quoted text>Dude put you big mouth where your cash is...Here is a link to the Marine Corps regs on Uniformsnow use your pea sized brain and find out where it prohibits Marines from holding an umbrellaheck please show me where it prohibits Marines from using one.rather than read what someone else thinks...try reading the actual regBBBBBBBBut no that would mean using actual facts, something you and your teabaggers are loathe to do

SO, how are you lowlife DemocRATS those morning who support a president who has an enemies list and also uses the IRS to target people, just like Nixon did. You strive for third world status, eh?yes, of course, I heard you say Obama knows nothing. Sure thing. Holder also knows nothing about anything too. yes, we know, LIARS.DemocRATS are scum.

News from planet earth:"According to two different polls, one by CNN/ORC International survey and the other Gallup, Obama’s approval rating has largely remained unchanged or gone up since Republicans went all-in with the run of “scandals” this past week."

SO, how are you lowlife DemocRATS those morning who support a president who has an enemies list and also uses the IRS to target people, just like Nixon did. You strive for third world status, eh?yes, of course, I heard you say Obama knows nothing. Sure thing. Holder also knows nothing about anything too. yes, we know, LIARS.DemocRATS are scum.

<quoted text>As you apparently did not read my response post to your wild claims, I am re-posting."" The differences between the two versions of the email have been overstated. At issue is the involvement of Ben Rhodes, a senior White House aide, in directing the various members of the inter-agency discussion to resolve their dispute.Here’s the relevant part of the email as quoted by Karl:We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.Here’s the relevant sentence from the real email:We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.The email is important because in the preceding email back-and-forth, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had urged that references to terrorism be removed because they could be a political liability to State. Whether Rhodes said Nuland’s objections should be accommodated explicitly or by implication is a difference, but it’s a pretty small one."So they were talking about State and the FBI in a previous email and then the next email states" We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."Who in the world does the Dems think she was referring too? A question I have asked since they started this non-event.Move on Sonic you can't hype this tale any longer.

NRO? right wing 'oh it's not that big a deal'? lol

ok. left wing 'it is a big deal'.

"When the GOP was given access to the lengthy email documents weeks ago, it was clear that their theory the White House inserted the ‘protest’ in the talking points to mislead the country had been completely debunked. The erroneous statement that the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi began as a protest was drafted by the intelligence community and remained in the talking points from beginning to end. This was the intelligence community’s belief at the time, and as flawed as that assessment was, the emails made clear the White House had no role in it.

But instead of coming clean with the country, someone in the GOP decided to change portions of the emails to discredit the White House, and leak them. This is deplorable conduct, and all the more so if it comes from those entrusted to fairly and objectively investigate claims of misconduct in government. Congressman Issa owes the public an answer as to who doctored these emails, who leaked them to the press, and who is being held accountable."

“A GOP leak of doctored e-mails [became] the basis of GOP talking points,” Schiff told the Washington Post.“That’s a pretty disturbing irony considering the investigation was supposed to be about spin on talking points.”

The United States Constitution states in Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Thus far in the history of the United States there been three Presidential impeachment proceedings -- in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson for his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act - 1974 against President Richard Richard Nixon for the Watergate coverup (106 years after Johnson)- 1998-99 against President Bill Clinton for concealing an extramarital affair (24 years after Nixon).

Modern Impeachment Procedure:

Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry. The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval. If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote. If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval. If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors). The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers. The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate. The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice. After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.

<quoted text>NRO? right wing 'oh it's not that big a deal'? lolok. left wing 'it is a big deal'."When the GOP was given access to the lengthy email documents weeks ago, it was clear that their theory the White House inserted the ‘protest’ in the talking points to mislead the country had been completely debunked. The erroneous statement that the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi began as a protest was drafted by the intelligence community and remained in the talking points from beginning to end. This was the intelligence community’s belief at the time, and as flawed as that assessment was, the emails made clear the White House had no role in it.But instead of coming clean with the country, someone in the GOP decided to change portions of the emails to discredit the White House, and leak them. This is deplorable conduct, and all the more so if it comes from those entrusted to fairly and objectively investigate claims of misconduct in government. Congressman Issa owes the public an answer as to who doctored these emails, who leaked them to the press, and who is being held accountable."“A GOP leak of doctored e-mails [became] the basis of GOP talking points,” Schiff told the Washington Post.“That’s a pretty disturbing irony considering the investigation was supposed to be about spin on talking points.”http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/dem_congressm...not moving on just because it interferes with right wing talking points that never held any water in the first place.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.